We actually know this one. It's genetics. Our dogs live in the same environment we do but, as yet, do not get to vote, drive cars, or run for political office. And very few know how to write. The difference is genetic.

Dec 8 2011:
I'm not attempting to be rude, but was this supposed to be funny? I can't tell if this was sarcasm or not, but just in case it isn't... Obviously the question of development, which clearly states "our" development, is in regards to human development, and has absolutely nothing to do with dogs. This question has not been definitively answered. Psychologists and other medical professionals are still in great debate over which factors influence our development the most.

Dec 8 2011:
QUOTE: "I'm not attempting to be rude, but was this supposed to be funny? I can't tell if this was sarcasm or not, but just in case it isn't... Obviously the question of development, which clearly states "our" development, is in regards to human development, and has absolutely nothing to do with dogs."

Did it make you smile?

The question of nature versus nurture is only an issue if we focus on one species at a time (which, as humans, we are prone to do) ... if we expand our consideration to include even two species then the BIGGEST factor, by far, is genetics ... after all, one little blip in our DNA, and we'd all be chimpanzees ... or maybe blue-green algae.

So our development (whether human or otherwise) is influenced first by genetics (it makes us what we are) and then by environment (it shapes us within very clearly defined constraints. ... Now I'm a human ... I can only be a "good" human, or a "bad" human. I don't really cut it as flora.)

No?

[It's funny if you want it to be... humour seems to be a personal thing.]

Dec 8 2011:
I get what you're saying now, but I guess we looked at the question differently. I took it to refer to human development, that is, once we are born (as humans!), do our genes or our environment play a bigger role in shaping who we ultimately become.

Dec 9 2011:
It is obvious that both plays a huge role in our development but to say which one could potentially create the biggest impact on the individual I'd go with our genetics/our biology and here is why:

I consider myself a very philosophical individual. There many values and principles that really guide my life and it is evident that my environment had an influence on such a development.

There was a period in time in which I was homeless and that's when I realized how these higher principles we base our lives around due to the environment we created for ourselves as a society really did not have an impact when I was homeless. it is in our genes to want to survive and we'll do that by any means necessary. These higher principles that we create for ourselves due to the society we live in really almost serve no purpose in the real face of danger. It actually a privilege to even have a conversation like this

Ultimately I think our biology can influence us more but I'd be a fool to say it influences us completely.

We actually know this one. It's the environment. Picture yourself having an identical twin brother. Then shoot yourself in the head. Your brother has the same genes as you do but, as you are dead, you do not get to vote, drive cars, or run for political office. And you no longer know how to write. The difference is environmental.

Well, let's say you have a twin and he passes away of natural causes ... would you become a genius ... or, say, an iguana?

You are (as I mentioned) focussing on a single species ... which is a typical human response. (As far as I know, iguanas don't have an opinion. Their brains haven't developed in quite the right way. It's genetic. you know?)

Dec 9 2011:
The question was "What's a bigger factor in OUR development?" Not, "What's a bigger factor in of the development of arbitrary species?" You are over-extending the question.

To extend your over-extension of the question further: "What's a bigger factor in the development of a rock versus an iguana?" It's clearly environmental, since a rock does not even have genes.

More generally, genes originated from the environment, not vice versa. One's genetic environment, which changes throughout life, is just one of many different environments that influence one's development.

Dec 10 2011:
If it were genetics as you state, then you would not become anything from your twins death as you would pass away of the same natural causes as your twin (assuming identical). If you did not pass away, then exposure to a different environment can be the only explanation.

The answer is both as seen in Epigenetics, it is the influence, combination and recipe of each.

To bring the question across species - According to Evolutionary Developmental Theory of Mind and Vygotsky, the ability to teach and learn (as opposed to mimicking) differentiates humans from all other species. One must ask the question uniquely to each species and cannot generalize development across the universe.

Dec 10 2011:
QUOTE: "If it were genetics as you state, then you would not become anything from your twins death as you would pass away of the same natural causes as your twin (assuming identical).

Hi Jessica,

So you're saying if one twin gets hit by lightening the other will as well.

That sucks.

And, of course, we can frame the question (or the answer ... or both) to refer only to humans if we wish.

We can also select discrete timeframes: for instance, in our (human) past, we made stone tools. We made them the same way for a long, long time (for example, we made Oldowan tools for a million years or so starting about 2.5 million years ago.) [Technically, we still make them, but you get my point (no pun intended.)]

Our environment didn't change all that much but we suddenly started making more sophisticated tools.

Why?

It might have had something to do with our brain's development (which is genetic) and we then changed our environment more or less continuously until, today, I can write to you from China.

Now, why did our brain suddenly develop?

Some think it's because we started eating fish which is rich in Omega 3 oils ... which is environmental.

So you see, it just depends on how we would like to answer the question.

I suspect no dogs have participated in this discussion (though their environments often include computers).... But we (all terrestrial earth-dwellers) are still evolving. Maybe there are some really, really smart, fish-eating dogs out there just waiting for their thumbs to become opposable and their Broca's area and Wernicke's area to evolve.

Dec 8 2011:
Didn't (and don't) we adapt genetically to our environment? We adapted from apes to humans because of certain environmental conditions. Since your question focuses on which factor influences our development more it would surely be the environment.

Dec 8 2011:
The fact that evolution occurs at all is evidence of the impact of environment on genetics. Those who are best suited to an environment prosper. The environment however has a great enough influence that those without the genetically endowed characteristics needed to survive it will die.

Thus the environment is the stronger of the two - capable of creating change in genetics and altering the course of evolution (such that we ARE different from dogs).

Dec 8 2011:
I remember being in class at a Catholic elementary school and a teacher saying that if you really want to occupy your time because you have nothing to do, try contemplating how old God is (ie. the Bible says he is infinite and has no beginning and no end).

Now that I have grown and am agnostic, I have replaced this with the age/size of the universe. It actually makes me very uncomfortable when I try to contemplate this.

Dec 9 2011:
There are two answers. Of the observable Universe, just over 15 billion light years long in all directions. Of the actual, requires us to be external to the Universe which by definition is not possible.

Comment deleted

this is the thing about Grown Love. What happened to passion, lust and curiosity for each other?
How come that often over time couples loose a lot, if not all, of what has made them attracted to one another the moment they met?

I call it the 'Dark Side' turns into 'White Side'.
The dark side is our curiosity, lust, passion, sense of adventure, intensity, pure-ness, surprise...
The white side is where we feel empathy, responsibility, diplomacy, understanding, patience, ...
And we all have a Dark Side AND a White Side in us that seek expression.

However, especially when we begin to think we 'know' our partner, a house is bought together, a family is built, many couples slowly but steadily stop being curious and start to focus only on behaving responsibly, caring for the kids, working hard to pay the bills, organizing life and worrying about the future.
Furthermore, if children are born in the relationship, couples don't feel the sense of passion, lust and adventure appropriate to live alongside raising the kids anymore.
The pure thought of spending a hot weekend just the two without kids often raises guild.
Doing a striptease or spending a champagne night full of lust and sex starts to feel awkward.
And this way, before you realize, your 'Grown Love' has become a love for each other purely lived with the White Side.

However, we all always have both sides in us that seek to be expressed as part of our life.
We can not and should not try to close this side down in us, both man and woman.

And that's why it is so important to not let your Grown Love become a 'less entangling mystery' but to make your love for each White and Dark. In the end, it's the love of the parents for each other that has created all there is. It's living the White AND the Dark Side with each other that thrives the relationship of the entire family.

So for all 'Grown Lovers' out there, remember what made you fall in love, feel it and live it.

Dec 8 2011:
Perhaps the the attraction of the One with the Many, Spirit with Form, Light with Darkness, Past with Future, Time with Space... which creates consciousness, life, evolution, peace, the moment, existence

Dec 8 2011:
love is the combination of effects originating by chemicals and hormone changes produced in your brain (like oxytocin) these effects provide us with similar sensations and consequences as those we feel by drugs (such as addiction and withdrawal). The three elements: (1) sexual desire, (2) emotions and (3) human dependency on a partner (originally for the purpose of evolution and to raise offspring) amalgamate to create that complex set of feelings and to ignite the production of the afore mentioned chemicals and hormones to which we have decided to give the name of LOVE.

Dec 9 2011:
Great question! I think there's some real mystery here and great potential if it's answered! psychology is not a mechanism, but as a discipline it offers some limited answers.
The mechanism clearly seems to be within the person, and that mechanism has the power to heal the body on its own steam! The answer, if found, could become a very powerful source for good.

Dec 9 2011:
Expectations
The human brain is wired to be influenced by Expectations. Placebos have their effect through a sort of mind-over-matter process. It's similar to how drug addicts can feel a 'high' by watching a video of another drug user 'shooting up.' We don't need to directly experience the drug's action to 'feel' the same result, IF we can expect what the effects of the drug could be.

(The actual mechanism may be the expected reinforcing/rewarding effects from a drug, like alcohol, by way of the Dopaminergic pathway).